Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Ramsey (artist) (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Tyler Ramsey (artist)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was adding again after being deleted with no addition information to prove notability.
 * Comment - User:Beatbox12 tacked the above on to the previous AfD page; I've moved it here. No opinion on the validity. ansh666 05:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: This page had been deleted and then restored by User:Ymblanter, so the page was previously deleted, if anyone is curious. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a technical misunderstanding. I found it going through the notices on misplaced AfD templates, saw that the template is linked to a closed AfD discussion and deleted the page. Then I realized that the situation is more complicated, and another AfD discussion it should have been linked, so that I restored the page. No opinion about notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I figured that you probably had a good reason, I was more mentioning that in order to avoid people automatically tagging it with the various speedy deletion templates. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, just got a notice and wanted to clarify.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but bear in mind I don't understand the above comments (or the nomination). When at AFD the article was like this and now I see this. The article has been completely rewritten and many references have been added. seem to be worth considering as indicating notability. Thincat (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * None of these references prove notability. The mention of celebrity ownership doesn't make an artist notable. Typically this is down through art exhibitions, showing work in notable galleries, accolades through notable art groups, or working with other notable artists. This artist hasn't provided any references those things.
 * I wasn't going by WP:ARTIST, I was going by WP:GNG. We are not required to "prove" notability – we are asked to heed the notability guidelines. Thincat (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Since he's classified as an artist, why don't you believe he should be held to the WP:ARTIST guidelines? With that said, I still don't see how he meets the WP:GNG notability guidelines. Beatbox12 (talk)


 * The most salient thing in the deletion discussion (IMO) is that he has been in the news quite a few times in the past few years (New York Times, Huffington Post, and lesser known outlets). I don't know if he gets media attention and is collected by famous people due to due to the quality of his work, or due to his 'insider' status among well-known people.  He sort of straddles the guidelines for WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG.  Perhaps his article shouldn't be as long as it is, but the artist seems at least as notable as, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Famous_Bushman. Slatsg (talk)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think there's a chance the subject might pass WP:GNG but the referencing has to be some of the most dishonest I have ever seen in a Wikipedia article. For example, the article suggests his artwork was bought by Ban Ki-Moon, a statement which is sourced to an article about an unrelated subject with a passing mention at the end that another source had suggested his work had been bought by, "officials at the United Nations". The vast majority of the biggest claims are completely unsourced and those that are sourced have been sourced to interviews with the subject where he makes various unsourced and unsubstantiated claims to fame. There are some sources that quote whole swathes of other sources but are used to suggest "multiple" instances of coverage. I'm going to try and clean it up but it's really quite atrocious. Stalwart 111  22:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've cut the article right back to only those claims that can be verified with reliable sources. I think there's enough coverage there to substantiate a pass against WP:GNG and it no longer reads like gushing promo-spam. Stalwart 111  23:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is a great improvement. I thought (when I voted above) there was sufficient referenced material to meet our populist notability guidelines but it was swamped by the other stuff (which I couldn't bear to consider properly!). Thincat (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was having the same problem - seemed like the only way to get a clear picture. Stalwart 111  21:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article now appears to be straight forward and is well sourced.  I vote to keep it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2reality (talk • contribs) 22:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The above comment appears to be affiliated with artist. With the edited article none of the sources seem to prove notability matching WP:ARTIST guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatbox12 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And? WP:COI is irrelevant, as is WP:ARTIST if the subject passes WP:GNG, which he does. Stalwart 111  22:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep (realised I didn't actually !vote) - the subject obviously passes WP:GNG and doesn't need to pass any subsequent secondary criteria. Artists need not pass WP:ARTIST if they already pass WP:GNG. Those secondary guidelines exist to allow non-mainstream artists to meet additional art-specific criteria if they don't meet GNG. The subject meets GNG with "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject". For our purposes here, nothing else matters. Stalwart 111  22:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In terms of pure numbers, consensus is clear. However, AFD is not a vote, and the strength of the arguments are so far not convincing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Huffington Post, The Atlantic, and International Business Times are among the cited sources. That sure looks like WP:GNG is satisfied to me. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.